Tully: Mayor Ballard too quick to dismiss valid concerns

Jan. 18, 2014

Mayor Greg Ballard / Adam Wolffbrandt/The Star

Written by

The late New York City Mayor Ed Koch was famous for greeting his constituents with a question: “How’m I doin’?” Sure, it was a gimmick, but at least he showed an interest in what the people he served thought about the job he was doing.

Here in Indianapolis, we have a city leader, Mayor Greg Ballard, who increasingly comes across as dismissive of valid concerns. He seems to be saying, time and again: “I don’t need you to tell me how I’m doing; I’ll tell you how I am doing.”

That attitude was on unfortunate display recently as Ballard sat in the WTHR (Channel 13) studios and brushed aside the complaints of so many city residents who were irritated by treacherous roads that remained snow-covered several days after the snow had stopped falling.

When asked whether Indianapolis could learn from cities with better snow-clearing reputations, Ballard said: “I try not to listen to that.” When read the complaint of one frustrated resident, a full five days after the snowfall, he said: “We’re not going to get back to normal in two days. People just have to be patient.” And when told of concerns from residents who wanted better plowing on side streets, he said: “I’m not sure where the expectations came (from).”

All the while, as he often does on other issues, Ballard insisted that his administration has done nothing wrong. The message, from a man who traveled the city streets after the storm with a taxpayer-funded driver, was clear: Everything’s great here. Quit your complaining.

It was reminiscent of another troubling interview Ballard gave to my colleague Jon Murray in September. At that time, the mayor fumed when read a skeptical question from a reader about his cricket park: “Oh really?” he said. “Are we there still?”

Um, yes we are, sir. Because we don’t have enough police on the streets, and that park is eating up $6 million of city money.

When asked if it was valid to question whether the cricket park was a sound use of public money, Ballard said flatly: “No, it’s not (a valid question).”

(Page 2 of 4)

“Do you want me to shut down the park system?” he continued. “I mean, that’s kind of what they’re saying here, right?”

Um, not really, sir. Your constituents are simply asking whether it’s wise to spend millions in a cash-crunched city on a sport that almost nobody here plays while other parks are neglected.

Listen, the mayor can make a decent argument in favor of his cricket park: It is, he has said in more productive interviews, an attempt to draw visitors to Indianapolis for tournaments and to bolster the city’s image as a more international city, and it’s about more sports than cricket. That’s fine. But that shouldn’t rule out questions about whether the park was the best use of taxpayers’ money or whether the city adequately studied the matter before sinking in so much money.

It’s been sad to watch Ballard sink deeper into this I’m-smarter-than-everyone-else style that afflicts far too many political leaders, particularly those who have been around a while. When not being asked to justify his decisions, Ballard is an extremely likable guy. And his administration has pushed forward a number of important initiatives on things such as infrastructure, Downtown development and smart budgeting. He’s leading a big city in a time of grueling economic and fiscal challenges, and his administration has done a nice job of improving some city services and making wise budget decisions that have headed off the types of painful cuts other cities have endured.

He’s been a good mayor, but he also has been his own worst enemy at times. His inability to tolerate different opinions, and his unwillingness to sell his agenda in a coherent and non-defensive way, is in part what has kept him from being a great mayor.

There have been stumbles during the Ballard years, and a leader should be able to take heat about them without being openly disdainful of the questions or the questioners. Although some of the criticism aimed at Ballard is purely partisan, when it comes to questions about snow removal, parks, crime and spending priorities, most residents care little about a mayor’s political party. Most of their complaints are based on honest concerns about the state of the city.

(Page 3 of 4)

So, it’s mind-boggling to think that the mayor won’t listen to complaints about, say, snow removal or crime, without growing defensive. Ballard, instead, ought to use it as an opportunity to start a much-needed conversation about crucial issues such as spending and priorities.

As Ballard begins the third year of his second term in office, it appears as if he has lost interest in the nuts and bolts of running a city. And that’s really what running a city is all about. Even close allies of the mayor’s say it’s a challenge to get him to talk with people who aren’t boosters or to engage him on issues outside a core group of passion topics. He is fortunate to have a top-notch staff led by chief of staff Ryan Vaughn, but like others before him, Ballard seems to have grown tired of the headaches of being mayor.

But not the trappings of it.

Consider this: During 2013, Ballard spent 62 days on out-of-town travel, not including personal trips. He attended a bike summit in Washington, spent almost a week in India on a trade mission, a few days at a robotics tournament in California and four days at the NCAA Final Four championships in Atlanta. He jetted off to France, Germany and New York for symposiums, meetings and summits. He went to Chicago and Barcelona, Spain, to receive awards from the parking and electric-vehicle industries — industries that have fared well under his administration.

Some of the meetings were of clear importance, such as one on crime at the White House. But the value of other trips was less obvious. Does an American mayor really need to spend five days in Florence, Italy, to “discuss cultural and urban redevelopment?”

Travel for Ballard and, in several cases, his wife, was financed largely by Develop Indy, an economic-development arm in the city funded primarily by local corporations and other non-taxpayer sources.

The mayor’s spokesman defended the travel, which collectively in 2013 was the equivalent of spending all of January and February, and three days in March, out of town. The spokesman, Marc Lotter, said several of the trips were related to areas in which Ballard “has taken a leadership position,” such as water issues, biking and parking meter privatization. He said the mayor “is never out of communication with the city, so the work of the city continues.”

(Page 4 of 4)

Still, 62 days out of town when his city was suffering through the worst murder rate it has seen in years? Are more international jaunts, four last year alone, worthwhile when those in the past have produced few significant results?

When asked about his frequent international travel recently, the mayor offered yet another irritable reply.

“This is a global economy,” he told Murray. “You’re going to live by it, or you’re going to die by it — take your pick.”

I talked to Ballard late Friday, just before filing this column. Most of the conversation was off the record at the request of his staff, but Ballard did defend his travel and what he called his focus on the city.

“I just think it’s important to get out there and have a presence,” he said of his travel. “We’re getting a lot of notice for a lot of things outside of the city.”

At home, he added: “The things are getting done. I don’t know how anyone could suggest otherwise.”

There’s no doubt that we do live in a global economy. And there is nothing wrong with a mayor traveling — as long as the travel directly benefits the city. The question is whether there has been a positive return on the investment of the mayor’s time, and whether the time away has distracted Ballard from the core job of being mayor.

Moreover, there is nothing wrong with politicians defending and selling their records — and stating the case for the decisions they make and the priorities they set. It’s important to rebut the charges of political rivals and critics. But there is a difference between defending your record against partisan criticism and dismissing appropriate concerns about the city you serve.

An arrogance and distance has crept into the mayor’s office. A political leader who won his first election by tapping into the frustrations of city residents now seems to ignore the views of anyone who dares to question him. It makes you wonder: When was the last time Ballard walked up to one of his constituents and asked, “How’m I doin‘?”